[quote]groo wrote:
On what moral basis are you deciding that killing the unborn is less moral than 9 months of slavery to the state?[/quote]
Women are not enslaved by the state, they are enslaved by their own choices (yearly, cases of abortion for rape are very rare, so essentially, the act which causes the pregnancy is one of choice). Considering that an unborn baby is biologically a human being, and has no means of defending itself, then by the traditional definition of murder (willful and intentional killing of an innocent human being), abortion is murder. The state rightfully outlaws all acts of murder and manslaughter, so why is this any different?
[quote]groo wrote:
This is not a self evident claim that a woman’s rights are superseded by the unborn fetus. [/quote]
Considering that the “fetus” is its own separate living human being, the claim is self-evident in that one person’s rights end where another’s begin. And seeing as no person has the right (legal, moral, or natural) to take an innocent human being’s life, the point is moot. That is unless you want to argue that because the woman has more power, or is in a greater position, her rights are more pressing. If you argue that, however, you argue for racism and for any means of oppression.
[quote]groo wrote:
I am close enough in this argument to a type of utilitarianism to explain my position something like.
Actions that decrease net suffering are moral.
Actions that increase net suffering are immoral.[/quote]
“Net suffering” is a cheap cop out for allowing you to harm people so long as you “help” more people. Ultimately this enables you to use and demean individuals under the pretense that you aren’t increasing “net” suffering (see, it balances out, because you are not suffering, but the other person is, in the end “net” suffering is zero). A better indicator is actions that demean the worth of a human being: any action or attitude that demeans a human being to an object that can be manipulated and used for someone else’s gain is immoral. To be sure, all of us act, intentionally or unintentionally, in ways that demean a person’s worth. Those actions are still immoral.
[quote]groo wrote:
Certainly abortion increases net suffering.[/quote]
Damn straight it does. Not only is it almost 100% fatal (considering that nearly every abortion leaves one person dead), it also has more social implications. Just look at Russia, the first country (under Stalin) to not only legalize abortion, but provide for it with state funds and promote it (the second was Nazi Germany). Russian population has decreased by about 700,000 each year since 1990, and over 25% of that decrease is directly attributable to abortion (not only the number killed, but also the number of women who were rendered sterile as a result). In a social assistance state like Russia, the decreasing population only increases the suffering of all, because there is less income going in to the welfare system and more going out.
[quote]groo wrote:
Forcing a woman to carry a child to term does as well both for her and sometimes, but not always for the child. [/quote]
The old saying goes, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you don’t want a speeding ticket, don’t speed. If you don’t want a baby, don’t do something that is specifically ordered to bring one to existence. Quite simple really. In reality, that attitude prevented a crap-load of out-of-wedlock and teenage pregnancies for several centuries. (Of course, history is also littered with individuals who didn’t give a rip, and produced a slew of bastard children…some of which became quite influential in the course of human events.)
[quote]groo wrote:
I don’t think its so clear as to be legislated. [/quote]
I dont’ really think it is debatable that abortion is the willful killing of an innocent human being. Let’s be honest. Genetically, the second an egg is fertilized, it contains the entire genetic code of an adult human being. An embryo is in essence no different from a newborn, or even my 18-month old, my 4 year-old or my 6 year-old, as they are all developing and maturing and will continue to do so until adulthood, if nature is allowed to take its course. Since willful killing of children and innocent adults is legislated against, so should abortion. If you want to argue that you can’t legislate abortion, than you need to legalize infanticide and homicide as well.
As our Declaration of Indepence quite clearly states: “All men were created equal”. What makes unborn children unworthy of the same rights and equality under the law as the rest of us?
[quote]groo wrote:
However, better sex education and more available contraception are certainly things that would lower abortions.
Perhaps developing effective hormonal birth control for men as well as that which is already available for women that would be mandatory though that gets into the issue of body control as well.[/quote]
Better sex education would certainly help, but more than that, more accurate sex education is what is called for. For example, in sex-ed and health class, a woman’s cycle is referred to as her menstrual cycle, when in reality the central event in the cycle the whole reason for the cycle is the maturing and release of one or more eggs to be fertilized. Sure the sloughing off of built up blood and uterine tissue is visible, but it is only the result of a woman’s fertility. If women had a grasp of their fertility or ovulation cycles, they’d be astounded at how awesome the whole system is…they’d have new respect for their sexuality and their bodies.
I hesitate to promote greater contraception, because as the Supreme Court ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), contraception is intrinsically linked to abortion: when contraception fails, women see abortion as the next alternative. Contraception is not perfect. The failure rate for condoms, based on Guttmacher Inst. (the research arm of contraception-friendly Planned Parenthood), is around 75-85%. The real effectiveness of the chemical methods is between 92-95% (injectables tend to decrease in efficiency over time). However, these methods are marketed as much more effective than they really are. The result? People engaging in risky behaviors (risk meaning pregancy or STD) more often because of their false sense of security (we see that all the time in athletics). The more one engages in risky behavior, the more the incidences of unwanted consequences will increase. That is unescapable logic.
Further, chemical contraceptives act in three ways: 1) preventing ovulation, 2) creating an inhospitable environment for sperm, and 3) preventing the attachment of a FERTILIZED EGG (if you recall, the moment an egg is fertilized, it ceases to be a gamete-sex cell-and becomes a human being, replete with its own complete genetic code, and begins a rapid rate of maturity that, if left alone, would continue on toward adulthood). The third method is technically an abortion: the chemist is willfully orchestrating events in order to kill a human being. Chemical methods, therefore, don’t alleviate abortion, they increase them.
In addition, chemical methods are replete with medical pit-falls. There is a strong link between chemical contraception and breast cancer (as well as abortion and breast cancer). In many female populations, hormonal contraception has been tied to decreased sex-drive and high blood pressure. And why, pray-tell, do our doctors hesitate to offer HRT (hormone replacement therapy) to menopausal women because of the terrible side-effects, but we are willing to pump our young women with more of the same hormones just so we can nail them when ever we want? And what of the story behind male chemical contraceptives? In the 1950s, both male and female chemical methods were being developed. When testicular shrinkage was shown in the male subjects, all work on the male pill stopped. However, after three Puerto Rican women died as a result of the Pill, they simply retooled the formula. “Sex without consequences” is worth, apparently, more than the lives of women.
[quote]groo wrote:
Some people in this thread have made assertions that they feel it should be an option to opt out of child support or at least alluding to the perceived unfairness. Of course its not and it really isn’t germane to abortion its just such a silly idea I wanted to jeer at it some.
The hunger sites all have good motivations. I am questioning the motives of people that think its important to argue for the unborn, that don’t help the children that are suffering at the present.
[/quote]
Don’t confuse “will” with “means”. Not all are blessed with the opportunity or bounty to provide assistance to those children that are suffering at present. In fact, you will, if you actually looked, find that a great majority of us that argue against abortion do provide financial and other assistance to suffering children the world over. A notable example is the late Mother Theresa, who, upon accepting her Nobel Prize for helping the most destitute in India, called abortion the scourge of our time. It is one thing to educate one’s self on abortion and life issues and speak out (which takes hardly any financial resources, most local libraries have free internet access, and thousands of people are willing to share info and ideas for free), and quite another to invest material aid to children who need it.
Also, one could quite soundly argue that the attitude behind abortion is the root cause of much of the suffering you are talking about. Why are children left to suffer in many places in the West, in Africa, and indeed, all over the world? Selfishness, pure and simple–the idea that my wants and my desires are so important it doesn’t matter who I hurt, use, oppress or manipulate to get them. In the late 1800s, the selfish greed of the Robber Barrons left millions of workers destitute. In Africa today, selfish warlords and politicians steal food and money that was meant for the poor, leaving the poor destitute. It is selfishness that causes abortion: the child is seen as an inconvenience, and therefore something to be discarded, like a broken toy.